Slashdot Mirror
WHO Report Links Weed Killer Ingredient To Cancer Risk
An anonymous reader sends word that a common weed killer may cause cancer according to the World Health Organization. "The world's most widely used weed killer can 'probably' cause cancer, the World Health Organization said on Friday. The WHO's cancer arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, said glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides, was 'classified as probably carcinogenic to humans.' It also said there was 'limited evidence' that glyphosate was carcinogenic in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma." Unsurprisingly, Monsanto, Roundup's manufacturer disagrees saying there is no evidence to support the findings and calls on WHO to hold a meeting to explain their conclusions.
Glyphosate has been off patent for years. It is a simple chemical that is cheap to make which is why it's in almost all herbicides now from every manufacturer under the sun.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I can't be the only person who's sick and tired of celebrities pretending they know the first thing about science. Musicians should stick to playing music. Stop trying to save the world! Why does a band even have a "cancer arm"?
I had an Australian Shepherd that had to be put down due to getting eaten by lymph cancer at a relatively young age. After doing some research I'm fairly certain that it was due to my ex spraying copious amounts of Roundup over pavers on which the dog liked to lay/sun on to keep grass from growing from the spaces in between the pavers.
After talking to a couple of vets and researching on the intertubez there appears to be more than a casual connection between canine cancers and liberal use of the product in areas in which they live and play.
If you have pets or children DO NOT spray this poison in their play areas!
If you're that OCD about a few weeds, pluck them rather than turning your yard into a toxic dump...
"Unsurprisingly, Monsanto, Roundup's manufacturer disagrees saying there is no evidence to support the findings and calls on WHO to hold a meeting to explain their conclusions."
Seems like a reasonable request to me. "Your data is different from ours, explain your results."
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Only Monsanto would make a product that gives weeds cancer instead of just killing them.
Everything 'probably' can cause cancer.
Also, for most vegetables and fruits, glyphosate is not sprayed directly on the crop, because it would kill it. It is used on corn and soybeans, but months before harvest. Glyphosate breaks down in soil. If it is carcinogenic, that is a concern for farm workers, but not a much of a concern for consumers.
Link to the actual fucking article:
http://www.thelancet.com/journ...
And to NBC, grow some balls and stop rolling over for blowjobs from advertisers. Monsanto is one of the largest agribusinesses in the world. its products are in everyones home, like it or not, in some form or another. For you to blatantly ignore a link to the article and dilute the fucking statement to a "probably" is nothing short of treasonous. Do your god damn job and stop worrying about the trolls.
Good people go to bed earlier.
wherein we find out that Monsanto has known it all along.
Probably they were hoping no one would find out until they' ready to market GMO humans that are resistant to it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Monsanto supplies crops that are engineered to be immune to glyphosate, named RoundUp ready which would imply the use is more prolific than you know.
"prolific" is still less than you think. Pesticide is expensive, and so is spraying entire crops with it. Farmers target their sprays for the fewest most effective times, they don't just hose it on day after day.
I'm going to be charitable and assume that you'll get to statistics next semester...
The chances are very good that the last piece of bread, pastry, gravy or soup thickened with flour you have had, would have roundup on it. Thanks to the crops being treated right before harvest.
Many farmers will use roundup a few days before harvest because it dries the wheat out. http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
vi +
Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Potassium.
Compounds containing these elements, or pure (elemental) forms of the elements? What happens to the phosphorous, alchemically transmuted?
Uhh, did you even bother READING the article you linked?
"The Working Group classified glyphosate as âoeprobably carcinogenic to humansâ (Group 2A)."
The "Working Group" is:
"In March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate"
NBC had nothing to do with the word "probably". The group of EXPERTS that met on the topic did.
Further more, if you actually read the article, and more importantly, the scientific studies they cite, you would probably realize a couple of things:
1) The concern is not for end consumers or even joe-schmoe gardener, it's for factory and field workers that are exposed to higher concentrations in greater volume than anything joe-schmoe would ever see.
2) Some of the studies are a bit tenuous. Sure, if you put a rat on an LD50-1 diet of glyphosate for their whole life, freaky things are going to happen.
Don't get me wrong, Monsanto is the fsking devil, just not for their work on glyphosate. Their business processes, the way they exploit farmers, their enforcement of IP, etc... is more than enough to warrant the hate that they deserve. But glyphosate, even with the risks we know about it, is so much better than the alternatives.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Science doesn't work that way - religion does
Yeah, but in California that sort of vagueness is still enough to have your business trashed by over-eager regulators who think that "probably" sounds close enough, even if it does mean "we drowned a rat in a vat of the stuff, and even though it died from lack of oxygen, it probably would have come down with cancer later anyway."
Meanwhile, being out in the fresh air and sunshine as much as our ancestors were will probably also give you cancer.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Read the article and weep. Of course, there's no need to weep for Monsanto, who are slaughtering their way to the bank.
Monsanto supplies crops that are engineered to be immune to glyphosate
Those crops are corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugarbeets, and alfalfa. None of these are vegetables or fruits that are eaten directly by consumers.
which would imply the use is more prolific than you know.
Glyphosate is a weed killer, and a slow one at that. When weeds are sprayed, it can take a week or two before they are fully dead. The reason to kill weeds is because they compete with the crop for water, nutrients, and sunlight. It makes no sense to spray glyphosate at the end of growing season, when the crops are nearing harvest. It is usually applied in the spring, when weeds are a few inches tall. By harvest time, only traces will remain.
Btw, Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene patents started to expire this year. Soybeans have already gone off patent, and other crops will follow in the next few years.
If you search all possible cancers for a connection with some chemical (e.g. sucrose) you will come up with several positives with a 95% confidence. Which is why you have to use statistical tests that account for all of the different targets.
Thus, at the very least the WHO needs to explain the stats rather than just the raw "probably causes cancer."
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
glyphosate breaks down into what ?
It is basically an amino acid (glycine) with a phosphate group attached. It can be fully metabolized by soil bacteria into phosphorus, nitrogen, CO2 and water. It has a half-life in soil of about 50 days. It has a half-life in surface water of about 90 days. It can be toxic to fish, and runoff is a problem. It should not be applied if rain is expected.
Ever eaten edamame at a sushi restaurant or corn on the cob?
Those are different crops. Sweet corn is not Roundup Ready. Edamame is not made from the same Roundup Ready soybeans grown as a dry seed crop for oil and animal feed.
Glyphosate causes cell cycle dysfunction which can result in cancer: Marc et al 2002, 2003. Of course cancer is not the only health risk: The Lethal Dangers of “Roundup” Made by Monsanto
Glyphosate was used by the US as a modern Agent Orange in Colombia: wikipedia
People don't eat corn?
You might want to mention that to all of the people on street corners and swap meets selling corn in the husk that they managed to get their hands on
Wherever You Go, There You Are
I guess you didn't read the summary of the first study;
There were no significant effects from glyphosate observed in brood survival, development, and mean pupal weight. Additionally, there were no biologically significant levels of adult mortality observed in any glyphosate treatment group.
Experts reviewing the assessment conclude that there is no evidence for increased alarm.
http://www.sciencemediacentre....
Dr Oliver Jones, Senior Lecturer in Analytical Chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, said:
"The study itself says that for all compounds, the evidence of human carcinogenicity was limited or considered inadequate."
...
"People might be interested to know that there are over 70 other things IARC also classifies as 'probably carcinogenic', including night shifts."
...
"While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence this does seem to me to be a precautionary rather than a reactionary change."
Prof Alan Boobis, Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology at Imperial College London, said:
"The UK Committee on Carcinogenicity has evaluated possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer on several occasions. It has found little evidence for such a link. At most, the evidence was inconsistent and was considered insufficient to call for regulatory action.
"These conclusions of IARC are important and should be taken into account when evaluating these pesticides, but that must also take into account how the pesticides are used in the real world. In my view this report is not a cause for undue alarm."
Prof Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology at Queen Mary University of London, said:
"The weight of evidence is against carcinogenicity"
...
"This assessment has looked at a group of 43 diseases lumped into one category, multiple pesticides with very different chemistry, and has failed to include critical data. There is nothing here to suggest that the variety of genetic changes in these diseases could be caused by these pesticides. This appears to be a rather selective review."
Prof David Coggon, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Southampton, said:
"Thus, when evaluating the epidemiological evidence, one is looking for a consistent pattern of increased risk for one or more tumour types, which is unlikely to be explained by biases (often unavoidable) in the study methods. It is clear from the summary table in the Lancet report that clear and consistent evidence of this type was not found for any of the pesticides that were considered"
...
"In contrast, studies in laboratory animals were judged to show clear evidence of carcinogenicity for four of the five compounds."
...
"The IARC report does not raise immediate alarms. However, I would expect regulatory authorities around the world to take note of this new evaluation, and to consider whether it indicates a need to review their risk assessments for any of the pesticides that they currently approve."
Prof Tony Dayan, Emeritus Toxicologist, said:
"In the present report the classification of glyphosate and malathion as carrying a Class IIA risk of causing cancer in humans reflects a variety of laboratory results with a small number of studies in man of varied quality and mixed conclusions. Detailed analysis of the nature and quality of the evidence overall does not support such a high level classification, which at the most should be Class IIB."
ONE expert made a very short remark saying that "study says glyphosate carcinogenic now" so gardeners should be careful when using pesticides.
Prof Andreas Kortenkamp, Professor in Human Toxicology at Brunel University London, said:
"IARC have carefully assessed new evidence about the cancer hazards of pesticides, and have now classified 5 pesticides as either 'probably' or 'possibly' carcinogenic to humans. The authorities in th
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
You might want to mention that to all of the people on street corners and swap meets selling corn in the husk that they managed to get their hands on
That is not Roundup Ready corn. The only corn that is Roundup Ready is field corn grown primarily as animal feed. Sweet corn (eaten as corn-on-the-cob) and popcorn, are not Roundup Ready, and are not sprayed with glyphosate.
Nowhere in that article does it say there is glyphosate in the wheat that's harvested.I doubt you could find any if the crop was tested because it has to be sprayed weeks before harvest. The article is pure FUD.
how we continue to buy into the propoganda of the great american lawn and chem agriculture. People shouldn't have to be convinced that chemicals in their living space and food chain are a bad idea. It should be a gut reaction and common sense.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf
For what sort of exposure, over what time frame?
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Monsanto has been selling Roundup Ready sweet corn since 2011 through their Seminis subsidiary.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
So. Do you want to eat animals that are fed crops containing glyphosate? Bad enough that they're full of hormones and antibiotics. And for what? To make agriculture marginally more efficient. Okay, I don't know how much cheaper (or profitable - if they're not sold cheaper) these crops, animals, natural gas, etc would be without GMO, roundup ready, benzene pumped into the ground fracking 'efficiencies'. But I'll bet you don't either. Has it even been studied? I'll bet that even the same approaches could be taken in a less blanket way and provide 80% of the benefits with way less than 80% of the downsides. That last 20% is always the hardest, least efficient to achieve. Why should it be any less so in industrial farming and gas extraction?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Sweet corn isn't RoundUp ready? That's news the the corn farmers I know... and also seed wholesaler Rupp.
http://www.ruppseeds.com/#!rrs...
not emphasize enough:
Before roundup-ready plants who are immune against the plant killing effects of roundup were available, with spraying herbicides to reduce pressure from weeds, the cultured plants needed to be shielded from getting in touch with the herbicide.
Now,with roundup-ready plants, shielding is no longer necessary and the cultured plants get the full load of herbicide.
The aspect of GMO-modified plants with their "foreign" genes is the usually perceived bad thing about GMO.
The secondary effect of much higher exposure in plants to herbicide when consumed which I think is much more damaging to our health is undervalued in communications around GMO effects.
Glyphosate is also a common consumer product. If there is any real cancer risk from it, in our hypersensitized culture we would be the first to know.
Well.....
1: Monsanto is evil.
Yep.
2: Their herbicide is cancer causing.
If you have heavy exposure, as an agricultural worker is likely to do.
3: Monsanto denies it.
See 1, above.
4: And they probably think smoking cigarettes is beneficial to your health.
citation needed.
5: Or maybe they are just greedy assholes who want money at the destruction of nature and everyone's health.
I doubt that they would go out of they way to destroy nature and everyone's health., otherwise Yep.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Monsanto sucks, but this blog seems like BS. One would figure any farmer using roundup would likely be using it to kill weeds on roundup ready crops. Roundup is expensive, why waste it on non GM plants?
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
If the farmer is going spend money on Roundup, then why not spend the money on Roundup ready wheat. You know, the stuff that can't be killed by roundup?
Monsanto sucks. But the blog is nonsense.
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
I must admit, I haven't read Monsanto's response. However, coffee, cellphones, metal coins, and bananas are all possible carcinogens (group 2B) according to IARC, while this study is elevating glyphosate to a probable (group 2A) carcinogen.
Most (80-90%) corn grown in the US is field corn for animal feed, not sweet corn
i'm screwed. i put that sh!t on everything. makes for a beautiful lawn and garden!
Scott
If the farmer is going spend money on Roundup, then why not spend the money on Roundup ready wheat.
Roundup Ready wheat is not commercially available, so they cannot buy it. It was developed by Monsanto, and approved for sale, but Monsanto decided to withhold it from the market, because there is no way to keep it separated from "normal" wheat, which would keep American wheat from being sold in Europe and other GMO-phobe markets. In fact, no GMO wheat of any kind is commercially available.
The supposed use of Roundup as a desiccant is mostly a horseshit myth:
http://www.snopes.com/food/tai...
is that Monsanto and the GOVT have been working together for decades. I'm suprised that the WHO is going after them, because that would imply a breakdown in their agreements. if not, it's extremely bizarre. logically speaking,
While Monsanto had to back off of Roundup resistant GMO wheat, it doesn't mean farmers don't use it on their crops. If it is sprayed on just before harvest, the plants seem to recognize they are dying so they pump all they have into the seed heads. Yield is increased. Since it is done so close to harvest, the glyphosate stays on the wheat kernels and is now in your bread. BR> This would be ok if glyphosate was biologically destroyed as Monsanto claims. Unfortunately it appears to accumulate in the human body. It even shows up in mother's breast milk: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/bl... This article shows a possible mechanism for causing mammary tumors: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/bl... If those don't give you pause for thought, here is a URL that lists multiple abstracts and articles about the effects of glyphosate: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/to... I avoid glyphosate as much as possible, which is really hard to do.
White space, must.use.white.space.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
GMO-phobe
I'm just trying to understand this. Why is there a stigma about being cautious about introducing GMOs the the ecosystem if we don't have an untouched backup of the ecosystem that sustains us. It's not as if we can un-introduce GMOs to the ecosystem once they are there so what is the problem with having strict controls over their deployment? Am I missing something?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Tell that to Monsanto: http://www.monsanto.com/produc...
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
I seem to recall reading a post a while back where farmers in those areas would get cancer from their long term use of glyphosate.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Why is there a stigma about being cautious about introducing GMOs the the ecosystem if we don't have an untouched backup of the ecosystem that sustains us. It's not as if we can un-introduce GMOs to the ecosystem once they are there so what is the problem with having strict controls over their deployment?
Because, if it was reasonable, the same caution would be applied to all new cultivars. Because we have tested quite a lot of them for quite a long time, and they don't seem to yield catastrophic results, yet it doesn't seem to change anybodies minds. Because people oppose golden rice, where most of the concerns people claim are their reason to oppose GMO does not apply. Because many of the groups opposing GMO are misrepresenting reasearch in order to make GMO seem more dangerous.
In short, because people opposing GMO does not act as they would if they had reasonable cautions about the ecosystem. In stead, they act as if they are dogmatically opposing a new technology for no other reason then it being new. That tends to draw a stigma.
That is a Bt containing GMO cultivar, not a round-up ready one. Any issues with glyphosate would be irrelevant there, as it is not more likely than non-GMO corn to be sprayed with glyphosate.
Sorry for the double-reply, but it does seem that it is round-up ready. It was not clear from the page you linked to, but NormalVisual linked to a page being more clear further down.
Monsanto's next product will be Roundup-ready Humans. They will survive the pesticide, but they will be sterile.
Months before harvest? Monsanto includes directions on using glyphosphate to speed up drying right before harvest for a lot of grains, including corn and wheat. It's OK if it kills the plant at that point - that's what helps dry it out. But that means the risk of residues is a lot higher than you think.
Very possibly worse. Glyphosate is believed to harm gut bacteria. Bt is *known* to do so, and to a much greater degree.
Nonaggression works!
That same corn is where you get cornmeal, corn flakes, hominy, masa for tortillas...
But that same corn is used for cornmeal, corn flakes, hominy, masa for tortillas... It's definitely used for human consumption, even if it's not sweet corn.
a whole bunch of non-scientists who know very little about cancer other than what they read on the web will automatically talk about terrible corporations putting profits above everything else, and automatically act like sheep and believe WHO.
At least have the decency to wait until some real facts actually come out to post an opinion.
Oh .. wait.. This is /. Sheeple rule!
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
I've seen a few articles linking this to "gluten intolerance", and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised in the least. The increase in celiac-type or gut conditions seems to trend nicely with the increased use of these pesticides, especially when you consider that it's not so prevalent in places where they're not used.
The Europeans still like their bread and pasta etc, and yet this is much less of a problem in Europe. Moreover, people who have issues with such foods in N America often report being able to eat them in Europe without getting sick. The difference: many of the chemicals used in North America are prohibited in Europe.
It seems that Glyphosate is a neurotoxin. That will affect you much sooner than any possible cancer.
--
You may tell a man "Thou art a fiend", but not "Your nose wants blowing".
Company patents expiring... Everyone can use the technology... Low cost alternatives to companies products. Company profits at risk! How to solve this? Plan: Make use of expired patents illegal. Trump up cancer causing claims to force glyphosate off market. Introduce new herbicide claim its better. Have new genetically modified seed available to work against new herbicide. Problem solved! Profits ensured for next 20 years... (just like Ozone Hole strategy it worked before...)
Very simple: if it's that safe, Monsanto officials should have no problem chugging a glass or two in front of cameras.
Glyphosate formulations are used as a "drying agent" sprayed onto non GM wheat used in bread making, just before harvest, to kill the crop. This reduces losses due to fungal damage and fuel costs of post harvest drying.
people opposing GMO does not act as they would if they had reasonable cautions about the ecosystem.
Ok, so what has been done by these organizations to protect the contamination of the ecosystem's genome from GMOs. I'm kind of on the fence about GMOs however it seems to me there is as much ground to be cautious about deploying them when they can introduce species extinction by interfering with the germination of seeds.
It seems to me that whilst there are great benefits there are also great risks, especially when there is an abundance of food and the real issue is attempting to manipulate commodity prices through the practice of grain dumping at sea.
If we need more food, wouldn't it be more logical to end grain dumping and improve food distribution than to grow more food that will just be dumped at sea anyway? Maybe we should be trying to understand the genome better before we go modifying it in the ecosystem.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.